Jon Stewart Exposes Fox Fabrication

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

Oh, see I thought the general thought was “he lied to us”. You know, the people of the US. Either way, you apparently missed the discussion about the capability of WMD production.
[/quote]

As was proven again and again, they did not have the capability.

Legal, meaning legal within the bounds of the UN treaty. Were the security council to veto the case for war, it would have had no bearing on the Iraq Resolution passed in the US Congress, however we would have been held accountable in the UN pursuant to the treaties we’ve signed there. I thought all of that went without saying, but apparently I was wrong.

[quote]
Your revisionist recollection is a little soft. We all know Saddam was a monster, but that wasn’t the bill we were sold and you know it.

By your recollection saying bush lied or that we were lied to is revisionist.[/quote]

I did not say lied, but we all know he negligently “sexed up” the intelligence in a way akin to scientists creating data when they get too excited about the outcome. Anyone who counseled more investigation was attacked because the WMDs were a ticking time-bomb requiring immediate action.

Read the Iraq Resolution: http://www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hjres114.pdf
and of the 20 or so points of order, you can see that only a handful don’t mention WMDs or Al-Qaeda (both which have since been debunked as willful hyperbole) and of that handful, all reference events happening in 1988, 1993, 1998. Why then, if those minority points were the real reason for war, did we wait until 2003 to declare and invade?

82

[quote]gerby wrote:
So now we have to check with Russia and China as to what we can and cannot do with respect to our national security? You go do that Mr. Liberal. Morons like you are why Hitler obtained the power he did. Conservatives of the day were clamoring for us to take his ass down before he built an army that could nearly take over the world.

Saddam didn’t have weapons and I’m glad. That made it easier for us to kick his ass. Going after Hitler before he invaded France or Poland would have been “pre-emptive” and “against world opinion” which is why we didn’t do it. Tell me again, how did that work out?[/quote]

Like I was saying, according to the constitution, the only body that can make laws for the US is congress. Therefore, we are not bound to UN law. The UN taking over the rolls of our government violates the whole idea of a republic.

83

[quote]borrek wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:

We are, rather unfortunately, bound to the decision of the security council on whether our war plans are legal or not.

Not according to the US constitution.

Legal, meaning legal within the bounds of the UN treaty. Were the security council to veto the case for war, it would have had no bearing on the Iraq Resolution passed in the US Congress, however we would have been held accountable in the UN pursuant to the treaties we’ve signed there. I thought all of that went without saying, but apparently I was wrong.

[/quote]

A treaty which can be terminated by congress or the president, making the idea of congress declaring war illegal according to a treaty pretty silly.

84

[quote]gerby wrote:
So now we have to check with Russia and China as to what we can and cannot do with respect to our national security? You go do that Mr. Liberal. Morons like you are why Hitler obtained the power he did.

Conservatives of the day were clamoring for us to take his ass down before he built an army that could nearly take over the world. Saddam didn’t have weapons and I’m glad. That made it easier for us to kick his ass. Going after Hitler before he invaded France or Poland would have been “pre-emptive” and “against world opinion” which is why we didn’t do it. Tell me again, how did that work out?[/quote]

Yes, you are right, I am the reason 6 million Jews were killed.

Moronic is debasing political discussion into this childish shit-flinging.

85

[quote]borrek wrote:

I did not say lied, but we all know he negligently “sexed up” the intelligence in a way akin to scientists creating data when they get too excited about the outcome. Anyone who counseled more investigation was attacked because the WMDs were a ticking time-bomb requiring immediate action.

Read the Iraq Resolution: http://www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hjres114.pdf
and of the 20 or so points of order, you can see that only a handful don’t mention WMDs or Al-Qaeda (both which have since been debunked as willful hyperbole) and of that handful, all reference events happening in 1988, 1993, 1998. Why then, if those minority points were the real reason for war, did we wait until 2003 to declare and invade? [/quote]

This is the sentiment that HT was countering. This was the topic of discussion in reference to the WMDs.

87

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
A treaty which can be terminated by congress or the president, making the idea of congress declaring war illegal according to a treaty pretty silly.[/quote]

You need to slow down and re-read things. I said nothing about Congress declaring the war illegal. What I specifically said is that if our Congress declared the war legal (as it did by passing the Iraq Resolution) yet the Security Council vetoed the case for war, then the war would be illegal in UN courts only.

If the UN did declare the war illegal, that would not make the Iraq Resolution illegal, as the Constitution is our supreme document, however the UN would still attempt to hold us to the treaty we signed with them.

This is not hard.

88

[quote]borrek wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:

Oh, see I thought the general thought was “he lied to us”. You know, the people of the US. Either way, you apparently missed the discussion about the capability of WMD production.

As was proven again and again, they did not have the capability.
[/quote]

Yes and no. First, remember this “proof” was after the fact and further that the only thing that proved he didn’t have them was, wait for it… the invasion. You can thank the invasion for that knowledge you are touting.

He did have enough yellow cake, he did have some gases.

Let me ask you something. You have a repeat murder standing in front of you. This guy has been threatening you, and is out on parole for murder. (you know he abuses his own family and such by the way). You also know that he has been violating his parole. refusing access to his apartment, not checking in with his parole officer, ect.

Now, standing in front of you, he pulls out a gun and starts loading it. what do you do? Do you wait until the gun is loaded to try to tackle him? do you take out your cell phone to call the police and stand there 20 minutes till they finally get there? Or do you try to stop him before he gets the gun loaded?

89

[quote]borrek wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
A treaty which can be terminated by congress or the president, making the idea of congress declaring war illegal according to a treaty pretty silly.

You need to slow down and re-read things. I said nothing about Congress declaring the war illegal. What I specifically said is that if our Congress declared the war legal (as it did by passing the Iraq Resolution) yet the Security Council vetoed the case for war, then the war would be illegal in UN courts only. If the UN did declare the war illegal, that would not make the Iraq Resolution illegal, as the Constitution is our supreme document, however the UN would still attempt to hold us to the treaty we signed with them.

This is not hard.
[/quote]

Okay. now why should we the people care what is illegal in UN courts? they are entirely non-binding. more suggestions than law.

90

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
borrek wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:

Oh, see I thought the general thought was “he lied to us”. You know, the people of the US. Either way, you apparently missed the discussion about the capability of WMD production.

As was proven again and again, they did not have the capability.

Yes and no. First, remember this “proof” was after the fact and further that the only thing that proved he didn’t have them was, wait for it… the invasion. You can thank the invasion for that knowledge you are touting.

He did have enough yellow cake, he did have some gases.

Let me ask you something. You have a repeat murder standing in front of you. This guy has been threatening you, and is out on parole for murder. (you know he abuses his own family and such by the way).

You also know that he has been violating his parole. refusing access to his apartment, not checking in with his parole officer, ect. Now, standing in front of you, he pulls out a gun and starts loading it. what do you do? Do you wait until the gun is loaded to try to tackle him? do you take out your cell phone to call the police and stand there 20 minutes till they finally get there? Or do you try to stop him before he gets the gun loaded?[/quote]

If you won’t answer that question, at least answer this. Does it change the “correctness” of your action if afterward you find out he was loading blanks?

91

If this hypothetical murderer was a perceived threat to my allies and foreign policy in the region, I’d probably invade and have him tried in courts by the people he raped and murdered for decades…

92

[quote]pushharder wrote:
HG Thrower wrote:
gerby wrote:
The WMD issue in Iraq is dangerous. Saddam was walking a fine line, in that he wanted to convince countries in the region that he did, in fact, have WMD’s, while trying to convince us that he didn’t. We absolutely came to the correct conclusion there.

People like you who denounce our country because we didn’t find WMD’s are missing the point completely. I’d much rather be wrong about somebody like Saddam having WMD’s, than be wrong about him not having them. In the meantime, we’re letting Iran devolop nukes because, hey, it isn’t like we have “proof” that he is trying to get them, or already has them.

Conservative: Hmm, we just invaded a country because we thought they had WMD’s, when in fact they did not. Oh well. I guess I was wrong.

Liberal: Hmm, Iran just nuked Israel and killed millions of people in the second holocaust because we didn’t have proof that Iran had nukes and therefore did nothing. Oh well. I guess I was…er, I mean Bush was wrong.

Once again, the conservative wins, hands down. Logic rules.

Actually, during the pre- and post-invasion timeframe I was in the AF and had daily intel briefings on Iraq among other things. Saddam had items that had no practical use together other than as part of a uranium weaponizing enrichment program.

I know this because I saw photos of these “items”. He had everything in place to quickly generate a large-scale WMD program. We also DID find chem and bio weapons, just not in the large quantities we expected. So, the real consensus in the intel community was that either:
A- Saddam retained the ability to quickly created WMD, but decided against stockpiling in the hopes that he could be made to look “not guilty”.

It would be relatively quick and easy to manufacture, then use chem and bio agents. It would also be easy to dismantle and spread the components used in the manufacturing process.
or
B- Saddam relocated the majority of his stockpiles before the invasion happened, probably to Syria, hoping he could survive the invasion and get them back later.

The “no WMDs” argument is in fact quite fallacious, but has been parroted so often by the MSM, it is now widely believed.

Bingo.

That ^^^^ and the repeated acts of war along with treaty violations are why we went into Iraq. The next time someone needs to show how ignorant they are about recent history just start spouting off about the U.S. invading Iraq because of non-existent WMDs.[/quote]

X2. I’m so tired of hearin this crap. The whole body of intelligence among the various agencies of the western world was in agreement that Hussein was a credible unconventional threat. I sometimes wish we could have a twilight zone style TV channel where we could view alternate versions of history.

If we had not gone in there and there were an attack somewhere using weapons traceable to Hussein there would have been a deafening cacophonous cry about how GWB was golfing while Saddam was producing WMD.

93

UPDATE: Hannity apologized for presenting the misleading video.

jnd

94

Wow, turns out it was an honest mistake after all. Now if we can only get liberals to apologize for lying about Rush we’ll have taken some important steps toward ending the bitterness.

95

[quote]gerby wrote:
Wow, turns out it was an honest mistake after all. Now if we can only get liberals to apologize for lying about Rush we’ll have taken some important steps toward ending the bitterness.[/quote]

Uhhh- No one said it was an honest mistake- he just apologized- there is a BIG difference.

jnd

96

[quote]jnd wrote:
gerby wrote:
Wow, turns out it was an honest mistake after all. Now if we can only get liberals to apologize for lying about Rush we’ll have taken some important steps toward ending the bitterness.

Uhhh- No one said it was an honest mistake- he just apologized- there is a BIG difference.

jnd[/quote]

He apologized. Which is more than the ‘objective anchorman’ Dan Rather ever did.

97

You go Mr. Liberal. A guy admits to making a mistake, says he’s sorry, and you still won’t just let it go. This story wasn’t such a huge freakin’ deal to begin with. In your world, only conservatives and republicans screw up. Liberals and democrats (and the MSM) are perfect.

You should visit the real world every now and again. We might be better off. What liberals have been doing to Bush, Palin, and Rush, to name a few, is far more dangerous than Hannity saying that a few thousand more people showed up at a rally.

98

Hannity said it was an “inadvertent mistake.” If you have proof to the contrary, please present it here. I’m sick of liberals telling me what was going through my head when I made a decision. According to them, I can’t vote against Obama without being a racist. Why can’t I just not like the guy? Why can’t Hannity just make an honest mistake?

99

FOX news it just a bunch of crazy liberals leftist communist nazi. Everyone know liberals own the media

100

[quote]gerby wrote:
You go Mr. Liberal. A guy admits to making a mistake, says he’s sorry, and you still won’t just let it go. This story wasn’t such a huge freakin’ deal to begin with. In your world, only conservatives and republicans screw up. Liberals and democrats (and the MSM) are perfect.

You should visit the real world every now and again. We might be better off. What liberals have been doing to Bush, Palin, and Rush, to name a few, is far more dangerous than Hannity saying that a few thousand more people showed up at a rally.[/quote]

I was simply pointing out that this mistake wasn’t so innocent. It seems to me that it was a calculated move to change viewer’s perceptions about the number of people that were so outraged that they showed up on a weekday to protest the health care bill.

To address your individual points.

Everyone screws up.
No one is perfect.
I visit the real world everyday.
Both sides throw mud- you seem to think it is worse on one side than the other- I don’t.

Mr. Liberal